2 Structural Change and Industrial Policy in Turkey İzak Atiyas and Ozan Bakış 1 This version: July 31, 2013 Abstract This paper presents evidence on structural change in Turkey and provides an overview of the evolution of industrial policy in the last three decades. We show that Turkey has experienced substantial growth in labor productivity in the last decade and that this has been associated with substantial change in the composition of value added and employment both in the overall economy and within the manufacturing industry. Using sectoral national accounts data we decompose aggregate productivity growth into productivity growth within sectors and productivity growth arising from the reallocation of employment from low to high productivity industries. We show that about two thirds of the increase in aggregate labor productivity arises from reallocation of employment. Decomposition of productivity growth using micro-data also reveals an important contribution from reallocation. We also document substantial change in the composition of exports. Regarding the role of industrial policy, our assessment is that structural change was not a direct result of selective industrial policy, simply because the incentive system displayed little sectoral selectivity during the period when major structural change took place. We also discuss the limitations of the quality of recent growth. Özet Bu çalışma Türkiye de yapısal değişim hakkında veri sunmakta ve geçen 30 yılda sanayi politikasının evrimini özetlemektedir. Çalışma son 10 yıl içinde işgücü verimliliğinin ciddi 1 Izak Atiyas: Sabanci University and Tusiad-Sabanci University Competitiveness Forum; Ozan Bakış: Tusiad-Sabanci University Competitiveness Forum; We would like to thank Zeren Taşpınar, Damla Yıldız and Çağlar Kaya for excellent research assistance. The micro data used in this research belong to the Turkish Statistical Office (TurkStat) research data folders on and Annual Industry and Service Statistics ( ve Yıllık Sanayi ve Hizmet İstatistikleri Analiz Veri Kütüğü) and data folder on Foreign Trade Statistics ( Dış Ticaret İstatistikleri Analiz Veri Kütüğü). We are grateful to TurkStat for providing access to this data set and for providing an excellent research environment. We are grateful for helpful comments to Hasan Ersel, Ahmed Galal and participants in the Economic Research Forum (ERF) Workshop on Structural Transformation and Industrial Policy in Selected MENA Countries in Istanbul, September 30, 2012 and at a seminar in Bilgi University. This paper is based on a project that received financial assistance of the European Union within the context of the FEMISE association and through the ERF. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union. All remaining errors and omissions are ours. 1

4 1 Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine various aspects of structural change in Turkey and present an overview of the evolution of industrial policy especially in the last three decades. Turkey experienced high growth rates in the last decade. We provide data below that suggests that these growth rates entailed substantial growth in labor productivity as well as significant change in the composition of employment, value added and exports. Rodrik (2010) showed that aggregate productivity growth in Turkey contains significant structural change, that is, allocation of labor from low to high productivity sectors. We corroborate this result using both aggregate (national income) and micro data. We document significant changes in the composition of value added and employment within the manufacturing industry and in the composition of exports. We also present an overview of industrial policy in Turkey. In particular, we discuss phases when investment and employment incentives contained sectoral selectivity, and when they were (more or less) neutral across sectors (but not across regions). One wonders to what extent industrial policy was responsible for structural change described above. Even though we do not provide any conclusive evidence, we do argue that a substantial part of these compositional changes actually occurred in a period when the incentive system lacked major selectivity across industries. At least for the time being we are led to conclude that structural change owed little to industrial policy. We do report, however, some evidence that regional incentives in the 2000s did have an effect on employment growth on a regional basis. High growth in labor productivity notwithstanding, the performance of the Turkish economy in the last decade does have limitations. Even though exports have increased and diversified substantially the degree of sophistication of export products is not very high. Similarly, while the share of products with medium level technological content in total exports has increased over time, the share of products with high technological content is still very low. Moreover, there is also evidence that especially those sectors that have expanded most rapidly in the last decade have relatively weak backward linkages and import relatively larger portion of inputs such as raw materials and components. We review evidence and identify these shortcomings. The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we provide a brief overview of the macroeconomic and policy background. In section 3 we provide evidence on various aspects of structural change. Section 4 presents a discussion of the evolution of industrial policy as well as a general evaluation. Section 5 concludes the paper. 3

5 2 The Macroeconomic and policy environment Up until 1980, Turkey followed what is generally known as an import substitution industrialization (ISI) strategy. This was an economic policy regime characterized by very high protection from imports, heavy controls on domestic prices, a repressed financial system, dominance of state owned enterprises in banking and what were seen as critical industries. ISI ended in a deep crisis at the end of the 1970s. A radical economic program was launched in January 1980 following a military coup and was more or less followed through persistently ever since. Hence the 1980s witnessed a fundamental transformation in the economic policy regime from import substitution industrialization towards trade liberalization, liberalization of domestic goods and financial markets, and liberalization of international finance. Foreign trade was liberalized first, during early and mid-1980s. Capital account liberalization was enacted in 1989 and implemented in A major step towards further liberalization was undertaken in 1996 through a Custom s Union (CU) with the European Union (EU). Between percent of Turkey s exports in the last decade and a half have been made to EU countries, though this ratio has declined somewhat during and after the global crisis. Liberalization was not accompanied by stabilization. Especially after 1987 and during much of the 1990s Turkey suffered high inflation rates, high real interest rates, high budget deficits and rapidly accumulating public debt. Budget deficits were primarily financed through issuance of government securities which were primarily held by the banking system. Banking supervision and regulation was especially weak. Arbitrage opportunities offered by very high domestic interest rates induced the banking system to increase their foreign exchange risk over time. These developments culminated in a severe crisis in during which almost half of the banking system was wiped out. A recovery program program was launched in 2001 by the coalition government that was in power when the crisis occurred. Most of the reform elements contained in the program were subsequently adopted or continued with little change by the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP) government that came to power after the elections of November The post-2002 macroeconomic environment was radically different from the earlier two decades of liberalization. Between GDP in Turkey grew at an average rate of 5.1 percent. The ratio of net public debt to GDP was reduced from 66 percent in 2001 to an average of 30 percent in Inflation as measured by the annual rate of change of the GDP deflator was reduced from 53 percent in 2002 to 6-7 percent at the end of the decade. Real interest rates which were above 15 percent in declined and remained below 5 percent after The banking system was consolidated and recapitalized, supervision and regulation of the banking system improved dramatically. With the establishment of macroeconomic stability the share of credits in total bank assets increased from around 30 percent in 2003 to around 50 percent in 2010 (Atiyas and Bakış, 2011). Anecdotal evidence suggests that access to credit improved substantially over the last decade, even for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). There is also evidence of improvements in institutions of economic policy through a strengthening of the legal and regulatory infrastructure necessary for the proper functioning of a modern market economy: measures were taken to curtail the discretionary powers of the government 4

6 (partly by delegation of substantial rule making authority to independent regulatory authorities) to, strengthen the independence of the Central Bank and improve transparency overall (Atiyas 2012). These developments took place in an overall international environment that was highly benign if not positively conducive to growth. The 2000s witnessed increased capital flows to emerging markets thanks to low interest rates in the US. In addition, in 2004 Turkey started accession talks with the EU. With improvements in the legal and regulatory infrastructure, these developments created amore favorable environment for foreign direct investment, which increased significantly in the 2000s, especially through privatizations. Two major macroeconomic problems that Turkey has been facing, and which have not been resolved in the last decade are high current account deficit, and high unemployment rates. Indeed, in the last decade as well growth has been accompanied by high current account deficits, hovering around 5-10 percent of GDP between (except for 2009 when growth rate of GDP was negative). Similarly, the unemployment rate was almost constant and above 10% during 2000s characterized by a relatively stable growth period. The fact that intermediate goods make up a large portion of total imports has recently led the government to entertain the idea that industrial policy may be one of the policy tools that may be used to attack the current account deficit and unemployment problems. The current account problem will be further discussed below. 3 Documenting structural change Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the evolution of per capita GDP in Turkey in the last 4 decades. Data for Figure 1 are from the Penn World Tables 7.1 (PPP Converted GDP Per Capita -Chain Series- at 2005 constant prices) and those for Figure 2 are from Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) (constant 1998 TL prices). What is noteworthy in that figure is that average incomes in Turkey have grown in a more uninterrupted and less erratic manner in the last decade relative to the earlier 2-3 decades. Per capita income was about 2000 current US$ in the second half of the 1970s; it was around 4000 US$ in the second half of the 1990s, and has reached a level of around 10,000 US$ by Clearly the last decade has been a period of more rapid growth than the earlier 2-3 decades. 5

7 Figure 1: Per Capita GDP (PPP 2005 prices) Source: Penn World Tables 7.1 Figure 2: Per Capita GDP (constant 1998 TL prices) Source: TurkStat Table 1 shows average growth of labor productivity (calculated as arithmetic average of annual log differences of GDP in constant TL prices divided by employment) over the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. We provide two different periodizations. In the first one average labor productivity growth is presented in terms of calendar decades. In the second one, which we believe is more meaningful, the first period covers the reform period prior to the liberalization of the capital count. The second period covers up to the end of 2001, including the crisis year, which appropriately belongs to the regime of the 1990s. The third period covers the years when the AKP has been in government. The 1980s appear to be a period of relatively high growth of labor productivity, albeit part of that is probably rebounding up 6

8 from the crisis years in the second half of the 1970s. Growth in average productivity of labor almost doubled in the 2000s relative to the 1990s. Table 1: Average Growth of Labor Productivity (% per annum) Source: Calculated from TurkStat data. Arithmetic averages of annual log differences. Productivity growth in the 2000s has been high in international comparison as well. Figure 3 shows a measure of growth of labor productivity (GDP PPP per worker) for Turkey and a set of comparators over the 1990s and 2000s. The data is obtained from Penn World Tables. The figure shows that growth of labor productivity in Turkey in the 2000s has been quite high relative to many Central European and Latin American countries, but not as high as that in countries such as Romania, India and China. Note also that the improvement in labor productivity growth in Turkey in the 2000s over the 1990s is apparent in this figure as well. Figure 3: Average growth rate of GDP per worker Italy Portugal Israel United States Brazil France Argentina Mexico Ireland Sweden Chile Egypt Taiwan Iran Finland Indonesia Thailand Hungary Rep. of Korea Peru Poland Turkey India Bulgaria Romania China gdp.w 1990s gdp.w 2000s Source: Penn World Tables. 3.1 Structural change: Aggregate (national income) data Improvements in overall productivity are often associated with structural change, that is, relatively higher growth of inputs and output in relatively higher productivity industries. Figure 4 provides an aggregate picture of structural change in Turkey over a period of four decades. It provides data on the 7

9 share of agriculture, industry and services in total GDP in current prices. The data comes from national accounts compiled by the Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) and combines two series. The first series has base year 1987 and covers the period and the second series has base year 1998 and covers the period The figure shows the persistent decline in the share of agriculture and the persistent increase in the share of services. The share of industry increases from about percent of GDP in the beginning of the period to about percent in the new millennium. In the case of industry one notices a relative decline after the 1990s; indeed, a closer inspection of the data reveals that the share of industry reaches a maximum of 28 percent in 1998 but declines to about percent towards the end of 2000s. The share of manufacturing is about percent of GDP in the period. Figure 4: Sectoral Composition of GDP (current prices, %) agriculture industry Services Source: TurkStat The category services is made up of a heterogeneous set of activities. Figure 5 provides data on the evolution of the more important components of services for the period The most glaring changes are twofold: the decline in the share of financial intermediation from about 8-10 percent of GDP to about 4 percent of GDP and the increase in the share of home ownership and dwelling from about 4-5 percent of GDP to about percent. 3 The former probably represents the impact of the crisis on the financial sector during which a sizeable portion of the banking system was wiped out. There is an increase in the share of transport, storage and communication as well, from below 12 percent to close to 14 percent for most of the last decade. Looking at sectoral composition of GDP in constant prices provides a somewhat different picture. In constant prices, the share of industry has increased from around 18 percent at the end of 1960s to 2 For the period TurkStat provides data on the share of agriculture, industry and services. For the period, TurkStat provides data at a more disaggregated level. For that period, Financial intermediation indirectly measured and taxes and subsidies have been proportionately distributed to individual sectors. 3 This is household expenditure on dwelling rent including the owner-occupied elements. 8

10 about percent in , with the share of manufacturing hovering about percent in the latter period. By contrast, the share of home ownership and dwelling remains at about 4-5 percent. Hence part of the movement in sectoral shares expressed in current prices reflects rapid increases in household rental prices in the last decade, relative to manufacturing industry prices. Sectoral price deflators are given in Figure 6. The figure shows that industry prices have increased slower than average. By contrast, the price deflator associated with home ownership has increased almost 25-fold in a matter of 13 years. It is this phenomenal increase in the price of dwelling services that explains the divergence between the share of dwelling in GDP expressed in current vs. constant prices. We do not pursue this issue any further in this paper but this rapid increase in non-tradables prices is clearly worthy of further study. Figure 5: Evolution of services (percent of GDP in current prices) Construction Wholesale and retail trade Transport, storage and communication Financial intermediation Ownership and dwelling Real estate, renting and business activities Source: TurkStat 9

11 Figure 6: Sectoral GDP deflators (1998=100) Mar-98 Jun-99 Sep-00 Dec-01 Mar-03 Jun-04 Sep-05 Dec-06 Mar-08 Jun-09 Sep-10 Dec-11 Agriculture Industry Services Construction Ownership and dwelling Real estate, renting and business activities Source: TurkStat. Paralleling the change in the composition of GDP, the composition of employment has changed as well. This is displayed in Figure 7. The figure shows a steady decline in agricultural employment from about 47 percent in 1988 to about percent in Note that the decline in the share of agriculture was steeper in the 2000s relative to the 1990s: about 7 percentage points between and 15 percentage points between There is a steady corresponding increase in the share of employment in services from less than 40 to over 55 percent in the same period. The increase in the employment share of industry has been less dramatic. It has increased from about 16 percent in the late 1980s to about 20 percent in mid 2000 s and has remained there. Figure 7: Composition of Employment (%) AGR IND SERV Source: TurkStat 10

12 3.1.1 Decomposing overall productivity growth Further insight into structural change can be obtained by decomposing overall growth in labor productivity into productivity growth within industries, and that arising from movement of labor from low to high productivity industries. One decomposition often used in the literature is as follows:,,,, Here the stands for the difference between time t and t-k, P and p i stand for productivity of the overall economy and of sector i, respectively and s i stands for the employment share of sector i. Hence the equation states that overall productivity growth between t and t-k consists of two components: the first is the productivity growth within each sector, weighted by the beginning of period employment shares. The second term is the sum of changes in employment shares, weighted by the end of period sectoral productivity levels. The second term is often called the structural change component. Such an exercise has already been undertaken for the case of Turkey by Rodrik (2010). Here we update the results with more recent data and provide further details. We are also particularly interested in a comparison between 1990s and 2000s. 4 The sectoral employment data published by TurkStat follows NACE Rev.1 classification for period, and NACE Rev.2 for the following years. We converted 18 NACE Rev.2 branch of activities into 9 NACE Rev.1 branch of activities so that we have 9 "sectors" for The sectoral GDP data comes from 2 series published by TurkStat. The first series is the sectoral GNP series which follows ISIC Rev.2 classification and covers period. The second series is the sectoral GDP series that follows NACE Rev.1.1 classification. It is published for the period We managed to have an imperfectly consistent sectoral data for both employment and GDP by regrouping both employment and GDP data into the following 9 sectors: agriculture (AGR); mining (MIN); manufacturing (MAN); public utilities - electric, gas, water (PU); construction (CONS); wholesale and retail trade (WRT); transport, communication and storage (TSC); finance, insurance, real estate and business services (FIRE); community, personal and government services (CSPSGS). 5 4 Unfortunately we cannot include the 1980s in this comparison as TurkStat does not provide sectoral employment data at this sectoral detail before For employment data we make the following transformation: "Agriculture", "Mining", "Manufacturing", "Electricity, gas, water" and "Construction" are common to both classifications. We regrouped "Wholesale and retail trade" and "Accommodation and food service activities" into WRT; "Transportation and storage" and "Information and communication" into TSC; "Financial and insurance activities", "Real estate activities", "Professional, scientific and technical activities" and "Administrative and support service activities" into FIRE; "Public administration and defense", "Education", "Human health and social work activities", "Arts, entertainment and recreation" and "Other social, community and personal service activities" into CSPSGS. For the GDP data we make the following transformations: in the GNP data we regrouped "Agriculture and livestock production", "Forestry", and "Fishing" into AGR; "Wholesale and retail trade", "Hotel, restaurants services" into WRT; "Financial institutions", "Ownership of dwelling", "Business and personal services", "Imputed bank service charges" into FIRE; "Government services", "Private non-profit institutions" into CSPSGS. Similarly in the GDP series we regrouped "Agriculture, hunting and forestry", "Fishing" into AGR; "Wholesale and retail trade", "Hotels and Restaurants" into WRT; "Financial intermediation", "Ownership and dwelling", "Real estate, renting and business activities" into FIRE; 11

13 The basic decomposition of growth in labor productivity is given in Table 2 for two periodizations, as before. The table shows that movement of labor from low to high productivity sectors has made a significant contribution to overall productivity growth. For the 1990s, almost all productivity growth is due to structural change. In the 2000s, structural change accounts for more than half of overall productivity change. As discussed by Rodrik (2010), Turkey resembles Asian countries, where the structural change components are often positive, rather than Latin American countries, where the structural change component is negative. Table 2: Decomposition of aggregate productivity growth (%) Within component Structural change total Source: Authors calculations based on TurkStat data. Averaging over decades hides significant volatility. Figure 8 presents the same decomposition on an annual basis. In almost all years (with the exception of 1995 and 2011) where productivity growth has been positive, the contribution of structural change has been positive as well, again pointing to the overall positive contribution of the structural change component to productivity growth. Figure 8: Decomposing Productivity Growth: Annual Data 15% within structural change 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% Source: Authors calculations based on TurkStat data. "Public administration and defense; compulsory social security", "Education", "Health and social work", "Other community, social and personal service activities", "Private household with employed persons" into CSPSGS. 12

14 Figure 9: Labor Productivity Gaps, Labor Productivity Gaps in Turkey, AGR CSPSGS WRT CONS MAN MIN TSC PU FIRE Sectoral Productivity as % of Average Productivity (%) Share of Total Employment (%) Source: Authors calculations based on TurkStat data. Figure 9, taken from Rodrik (but updated with 2010 data) shows the average labor productivity of individual sectors in 2010, expressed as percentage of (weighted) average productivity. The x-axis in the table shows employment shares. The dispersion is quite high, ranging from agriculture where productivity is about 40 percent of average productivity, to public utilities, and the financial sector (FIRE), where productivity is about three times as high as manufacturing. Figure 10 plots for each year the variance of logarithm of sectoral productivities between the years There is an overall declining trend, reflecting a slight convergence in the labor productivities across sectors. 13

15 Figure 10: Evolution of dispersion of productivity ( ) 0.3 Labor Productivity Dispersion Source: Authors calculations based on TurkStat data. Table 3 provides detailed data on the contribution of individual industries to overall productivity growth in the 1990s and 2000s. In each panel the first (last) row shows the percentage point contribution (percentage share) of each sector to the overall average annual productivity growth in that period. 6 The next two rows decompose that contribution to changes in the sectors productivity (multiplied by the employment share in the beginning of the period, the within component ) and changes in the sectors employment share (multiplied by productivity at the end of the period, the structural change component). Hence during the period the highest contribution to overall productivity growth came from the manufacturing industry: almost 34 percent of the overall average annual productivity growth of about 1 percent occurred in manufacturing. In the 2000s the largest contribution came from the manufacturing sector (MAN) and the financial sector (FIRE) accounting each for about 30 percent of overall productivity growth. Note that productivity increase within FIRE has been negative. In FIRE the overall positive contribution comes fundamentally from the structural change component. In fact, looking at the details reveals that the increase in the share of FIRE employment is relatively small; a much higher than average level of productivity (see Figure 9) gets multiplied by a small increase in employment, resulting in a sizeable structural change component. In MAN the contribution of increase in productivity (the within component) is large, and that of increase in employment share is smaller but still positive. To summarize the main results so far: Turkey has experienced significant growth in overall labor productivity in the last decade. The increase in labor productivity is respectable in international comparison as well. The country has experienced significant structural change, whereby the employment and value added shares of agriculture has decreased and those of services, and to some extent, of manufacturing have increased. 6 Both components scaled by the beginning-of-period overall productivity. 14

16 Table 3: Decomposing average annual productivity growth: The sectoral details ( ) Perc. point contrib. to LP growth AGR MIN MAN PU CONS WRT TSC FIRE CSPSGS All Within component Structural change Perc. sh. in LP growth Perc. point contrib. to LP growth Within component Structural change Perc. sh. in LP growth Source: Authors calculations based on TurkStat data. Structural change has made a significant contribution to overall productivity growth, both in the 1990s and in 2000s. In fact, in the period almost all of overall growth in labor productivity was due to structural change. During the 2000s, both productivity increase within industries and structural change were important in overall productivity growth, accounting for about one third and two thirds of the latter, respectively. Both manufacturing and the finance-real estate sector made significant contributions to overall productivity growth. 3.2 Looking at micro data The previous section showed that structural change contributed significantly to the overall increase in productivity in the 2000s. In this section we look at micro data to see if we can get additional insights into the evolution of labor productivity in Turkey Changes in the size distribution of output and employment We start by comparing the size distribution of production over different periods of time. The distribution of output across firms of different size classes may reflect the impact of a number of influences. Smaller firms may have more constrained access to markets because of limited credit, or market foreclosure by larger firms, or other transactions costs that may work to the disadvantage of smaller firms. In environments where political connections are important, larger firms may enjoy more extended political connections that may enable them to access critical resources more easily. This may be especially relevant in Turkey. The micro data used in this section is compiled by TurkStat. For the years the data set consists of private plants with at least 10 employees and all state owned plants in the manufacturing industry. For the period the data set contains all 20+ firms plus random samples of 1-19 firms accompanied with sampling weights from all industries. For the period, there is also information on the employment and sales of all plants owned by the firms. In the comparisons in this 15

17 subsection, years for comparisons were chosen so as not to correspond to crisis years. Also comparisons are carried out only for the manufacturing industry. Table 4 displays the number of plants in the data set used in this section. The data set covers plants with at least 10 employees. In principle the data set should cover the whole population of firms within each size range but n practice we cannot rule out imperfect or incomplete coverage, hence care should be undertaken comparing the results. Comparing the periods with , one notes the decrease in the number of plants with employees and the corresponding increase in the number of firms with and employees. Most possibly this reflects the fact that some very small (10-19) plants grew and became firms with medium sizes. Still, it is not clear how to interpret the fact that the total number of plants does not increase between the 1980s and 1990s. In other words, it is hard to believe that there has been no new entry at a larger scale into the category. It could be that some new plants in that size category were not covered by the surveys. The number of plants in the 2000s is much larger. While part of this is possibly new entry, it is also likely to reflect a more effective coverage of existing plants. 7 Table 4: Size distribution - Number of plants s s s s s s500+ Total Source: Authors calculations based on TurkStat micro data. Table 5 provides data on the share of plants in different size categories of total employment. We use sales from production rather than value added because value added is not available at the plant level for ; in fact only sales is available at the plant level. Also, we assume that the distribution of sales from production across plants in each firm is the same as the distribution of sales across plants in each firm. The data reveals a fundamental change in overall market structure. Whereas plants with more than 500 employees accounted for 47 percent of employment and 57 percent of sales in , these ratios have decreased to 22 percent and 35 percent respectively. These are very significant changes. There have been corresponding increases in the shares of smaller plants. For example, the employment 7 In 2006 the authorities started an official statistics program that established closer coordination between TurkStat, the Ministry of Finance, the State Planning Organization, the Social Security Institution etc. Data pertaining to 2006 and later is likely to be more reliable because coverage of firms reflects information obtained on a more coordinated basis. At the same time, however, starting with 2006 sales and value added figures were collected from accounting records firms provided to the Ministry of Finance, whereas in the earlier years these data were collected by firms submissions directly to the survey questionnaire. Because of widespread tax evasion, official figures may be more distorted than data provided by the firms directly during survey implementation. 16

18 share of plants with less than 50 employees has increased from 17 to 37 percent. The share of sales of the same group of plants increased from 11 to 23 percent. Here a few comments are in order: The main question is, does the data reflect an actual decrease in the share of largest firms, or is this a statistical artifact due to changing scope of coverage of existing firms? Compare first the 1980s and 1990s. Here the shares of largest firms have decreased despite the fact that the total number of firms has remained relatively constant. This has to reflect a real redistribution of sales towards smaller firms. We cannot be so sure about the 2000s. Clearly, the increase in the number of small firms is much larger than that of large firms. We cannot be sure to what extent this is true entry and to what extent it is better coverage. In this case, the increase in the coverage of firms may have played an important role in the increase in the employment and production share of smaller firms. Table 5: Evolution of size distribution of plants in manufacturing share in employment share in sales from production average productivity (relative to plants with employees) Source: Authors calculations based on TurkStat micro data. Employment size category s s s s s s The table also shows average labor productivity, expressed as sales from production per employee. The average productivity of each size category is expressed as a percentage of the average productivity of firms with employees. In all periods, average productivity increases with size. Moreover, the size distribution of average productivity shows remarkable similarity across time periods. The average productivity of 500+ firms is about times those of firms. The ratios for other size categories are also pretty constant over time. In short, larger firms are more productive and the gap pattern is quite persistent over time Decomposing labor productivity growth in the last decade In this section we try to provide some additional details into the dynamics of overall labor productivity growth in the 2000s. In particular, following a standard decomposition method employed by Griliches and Regev (1995), we try to see the contribution of four dimensions to overall productivity growth from one period to the next. For that, let us define labor productivity of firm in year as: 17

19 where denotes value-added and employment (typically number of workers). It can be shown that growth in aggregate productivity between periods and can be decomposed in the following way:,,,,, Here P is aggregate productivity, and are the employment share and productivity for firm at period and C, E and X stand for the set of continuing, entering and exiting firms, respectively. Bars over a variable indicate averages of the variable over base and end years. Hence the terms and stand for averages over periods and and is the mean of productivity for the industry over periods and. The decomposition indicates that aggregate productivity growth in the industry between periods and can be decomposed into four terms. The first term is often called the within-firm or intra-firm effect and is the sum of productivity growth in each firm weighted by the mean share in employment. The second term is the between-firm effect expressed as the sum of changes in the employment share of the firm multiplied by the difference between average firm-level productivity and average industry-level productivity, averages being taken across beginning and end of period. The third term captures the contribution of entry and is positive if the productivity of new entrants is higher than the industry average. Finally, the last term is minus the contribution of exitors and increases aggregate productivity growth if the productivity of the exitors is less than the industry average. It will be useful to describe briefly the data. Table 6 provides data on the total number of firms covered in the BSS data base. For each year, continuing firms ( ) refer to firms that were present in year 1 and are still present in year. Entering firms ( ) refer to firms that entered the data set in year t. Exitors ( ) refer to firms that were present in 1 and are not present in year. So for total number of firms at time, we have and. Notice that the number of entrants in the year 2004 looks excessively large, more than half of total firms in Indeed, the total number of firms increases by more than 50 percent between 2003 and This seems to be due to the fact that many firms were not captured by the data collection effort in (There are some additional anomalies in the data set, as will be discussed below.) Note also the large number of exiting firms in 2009, reflecting the effect of the crisis. 18

20 Table 6: Number of firms in the BSS sample All firms Manufacturing Total Continuing Continuing Entrants Exitors Total Entrants Exitors firms firms Note: firms with 20+ employees Source: Authors calculations based on TurkStat micro data. Labor productivity is defined as value added divided by the number of employees. Value added data has been expressed in 1998 prices through the use of sectoral GDP deflators 8. Table 7 shows the (weighted) average productivity of continuing, entering and exiting firms. In the case of the economy as a whole, continuing firms productivity is almost double those of entering or exiting firms. Productivity among entering and exiting firms is of similar order of magnitude, at least on average. Productivity among manufacturing firms is higher than economy-wide averages, as expected. The decomposition of labor productivity growth is presented in Table 8. Table 7: Weighted average of productivity all firms manufacturing C E X C E X Source: Authors calculations based on TurkStat micro data. 8 We derive sectoral GDP deflators using European System of Accounts (ESA 95) based GDP series in current and constant prices (1998 base) published by TurkStat. The data are collected according to NACE Rev. 1.1 where we have 17 sectors identified by alphabetical letters A to Q. 19

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT KEY STATISTICS AND TRENDS in International Trade 2014 UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT KEY STATISTICS AND TRENDS in International Trade

INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS LABOR PRODUCTIVITY LEADERSHIP AND CONVERGENCE AMONG 14 OECD COUNTRIES Morton Schnabel * Office of Business and Industrial Analysis Office of Policy Development Economics and

Volume of capital services: new annual and quarterly estimates for 1950 to 2009 John Appleton Office for National Statistics Gavin Wallis HM Treasury Summary Capital services are the measure of capital

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE COMPANY S. No. Field Name Instructions II Number of business Enter the number of business undertaken by the company. II Main code Based on the number of business undertaken,

To what South Korea Owes Success in Innovations? Implications for Turkey Selin Arslanhan Research Associate Yaprak Kurtsal Research Associate TEPAV Policy Note September 21 Introduction South Korea managed

Framework for data integration in support of SNA compilation and modeling: Exercise for use of SNA in early estimates and projections in Central America By Jan W. van Tongeren, IVO. April 2006. A. Framework

The Creation of Economic and Corporate Wealth in a Dynamic Economy Is the Productivity Slowdown in the US and the Acceleration in the Euro Area Structural or Cyclical? By Dale W. Jorgenson Harvard University

The East Asian Miracle Main characteristics of the Asian Miracle Rapid economic growth (GDP, per capita GDP) Persistence of rapid economic growth an unprecedented long period of economic expansion (> 25

3 July 2015 Export and Import Price Indices of Industrial Products. Base 2010 May 2015. Provisional data The annual variation rate of the IPRIX stands at 1.0%, five tenths lower than in April The annual

Trends in Foreign Direct Investment Inflows This article briefly examines recent trends in foreign direct investment in Australia, both in the context of the longer-term perspective and relative to the

A PROTOTYPE INDUSTRY-LEVEL PRODUCTION ACCOUNT FOR THE UNITED STATES, 1947-2010 by Dale W. Jorgenson Harvard University http://economics.harvard.edu/faculty/jorgenson/ WIOD Conference: Causes and Consequences

The Economic Impacts of Reducing Natural Gas and Electricity Use in Ontario Prepared for Blue Green Canada July 2013 Table of Contents Executive Summary... i Key Findings... i Introduction...1 Secondary

Policy on Scoping Quality/Environmental Management Systems Certification Bodies Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the International Accreditation Service (IAS) applicants and accredited

A Macroeconomic Perspective on the Real Sector: Growth, Economic Fluctuations and Inflation Workshop for Staff of Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar June 2 3, 2014

Kiel Policy Brief The Importance of Investment Income and Transfers in the Current Account: A New Look on Imbalances Rolf J. Langhammer No. 48 May 2012 Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel Kiel Institute for

SWITCH TO THE NEW CLASSIFICATION OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES ( REV) 1 Introduction of new classification of activities (nace rev) 1.1. General Classifications of activities and products are revised periodically.

Statistical Data on Women Entrepreneurs in Europe September 2014 Enterprise and Industry EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry Directorate D SMEs and Entrepreneurship Unit

The Changing Shape of UK Manufacturing Author Name(s): Michael Hardie and Andrew Banks Abstract The contribution of the manufacturing industry to the UK economy has changed markedly over the last 60 years.

8 Economy In 2012, GNP in constant prices increased by 1.8% compared with 2011. The building and construction sector fell by 7.7% in value added terms in 2012 compared to 2011. Manufacturing industry decreased

Manpower Employment Outlook Survey Norway Q2 2015 The Manpower Employment Outlook Survey for the second quarter 2015 was conducted by interviewing a representative sample of 751 employers in Norway. All

September 2004 THE UPDATE OF THE EURO EFFECTIVE EXCHANGE RATE INDICES Executive summary In September 2004, the European Central Bank (ECB) has updated the overall trade weights underlying the ECB nominal

United Nations Conference on Trade And Development INVESTMENT COUNTRY PROFILES Denmark March 2013 Denmark i NOTE The Division on Investment and Enterprise of UNCTAD is a global centre of excellence, dealing

PRELIMINARY AND INCOMPLETE PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE Does the interaction between service and manufacturing explain the recent trends in export specialisation? A look at the evidence from the EU Novella Bottini

Compiling the Gross Domestic Product: The Myanmar Experience by Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development The views expressed in this document are of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

18 December 2014 Industrial Companies Survey Year 2013 Industrial turnover decreases 2.5% in the year 2013 and stands at 562,351 million euros Manufacture of motor vehicles registers the highest increase

Science, Technology and Information Society 2014 Human resources of science and technology in 2012 A growing number of doctorate degrees attained by foreigners A total of 1,143 doctorate degrees were attained

KING COLLEGE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS KING COLLEGE REGIONAL ECONOMIC STUDIES (KCRES) KCRES PAPER NO. 4, May 2012 Economic Impact Multipliers for the Coalfield Region of Southwestern Virginia The Coalfield Region

Errors and omissions in the balance of payments statistics a problem? BY GUNNAR BLOMBERG, LARS FORSS AND INGVAR KARLSSON The authors work in the Monetary Policy Department. The balance of payments statistics

INVESTING IN U.S. COMPETITIVENESS: The Benefits of Enhancing the Research and Experimentation (R&E) Tax Credit Instead of tax loopholes that incentivize investment in overseas jobs, I m proposing a more

HANDBOOK ON PRICE AND VOLUME MEASURES IN NATIONAL ACCOUNTS Version prepared for the seminar on Price and Volume Measures, 14-16 March 2001, Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg Handbook on Price and Volume

Project LINK Meeting New York, - October 1 Country Report: Australia Prepared by Peter Brain: National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, and Duncan Ironmonger: Department of Economics, University

Promoting Careers in Maintenance I m 18 years old and don t especially want to go to college. I m not sure what I want to study or what kind of a program or career to pursue. I ve got good grades. I suppose

SURVEY OF EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS IN LARGE ESTABLISHMENTS March 2011 (Preliminary results) 1. Introduction Statistics Mauritius carries out, every year in March, the Survey of Employment and Earnings in